The Carousel Strip Club - and its owner: "Jack Ruby, the angry man who killed Lee Harvey Oswald."

Well, whoever wrote what I would now call the "JFK TV SOAP" certainly used all the winning ingredients of a crappy, yet best-selling 'Hollywood' script - complete with topless girls and sensational connections. In any case, this Jack Ruby character who "killed JFK's killer" two days after "the JFK shooting in Dealey Plaza" - clearly emerges as an integral part of the entire media-concocted plot (YES, Walter Cronkite lied to you). As the story goes, Ruby owned a strip club called "the Carousel". Yes - 'carousel' - as in 'merry-go-round'... And 50 years later, the JFK case is still spinning in circles. Funny, eh?

"Funnier" still :

"Ruby owned the Carousel Club strip joint, clip joint, directly across the street from the Adolphus, where the Secret Service had also set up their primary communications center to coordinate the President's impending visit."http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/11-18-07.html

Woah! So the Secret Service set up their HQ for the JFK visit - directly across the street from Jack Ruby's Carousel club? My goodness - what a fascinating coincidink, eh ? Little did they know that the owner of the strip club right across the street was going to kill, only two days later, the killer of JFK. But the plot thickens. You see, a saucy 17-year-old blonde singer by the name of Beverly Oliver was a frequent visitor at the Carousel strip club - and knew Ruby very well:

"Then a seventeen year old singer at the Colony Club, blonde andbeautiful Beverly Oliver claims to have accompanied Ruby to the Cabana thatnight. As a young and precocious show girl, Oliver recalls that Ruby and Meyersdrank coffee and talked while she drank champagne and danced (...)"http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/11-18-07.html

But it gets funnier still: by pure chance - of course! - Beverly Oliver (who, we are told, knew both Ruby and Oswald) just happened to be a close-up spectator and lucky amateur filmmaker of the "JFK shooting" (but sadly, her film was seized by the FBI...). In fact, here are the three lucky girls who reportedly witnessed this historical event unfolding right in front of their noses...

Here's Beverly Oliver (aka "the Babushka lady") popping up on the scene about seven years later (in 1970) and telling her story - about not only having met both Ruby and Oswald - but having also witnessed the murder of JFK at close distance, well... pretty much right in front of her nose!

"This particular time, a few weeks before the assassination, Ruby took him [Meyers] over to the Dallas State Fairgrounds to meet some friends who had a failing carousel act – a tent where they showed a film called “How Hollywood Made Movies.”http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.it/2012_ ... chive.html

Only last year (2013), the Carousel's top star-stripper "Tammi True" 'opened up' and told HER story about her old boss - Jack Ruby :

"Tammi True, who worked as a stripper at the time, has now opened up about how she believes that her then-boss Jack Ruby was acting on his own accord when he shot and killed Lee Harvey Oswald.

'Jack did it because he had the opportunity,' Ms True said.'There were a lot of people who wanted to do what Jack did.'

Ms True, who is now 75-years-old, is featured in an upcoming film called True Tales, where she gives insight into Ruby and his possible motivations. She said that there was no way that his killing of Oswald was planned because he overslept that morning.

You see, there is NO WAY that any of this JFK / Oswald-murder stuff was planned or pre-scripted - because Ruby overslept! MissTrue now tells you so - therefore it must be true - as she must have slept with Ruby that night. Tammi has INSIDE KNOWLEDGE of this affair - and we don't, so why don't we just give up ?

Looks like this hypnotic and mind-numbingly silly JFK TV SOAP started the current American slumber.

Simon, the Oswald "assassination" was indeed telecast live, photographed by a turret lens-mounted, full-size, studio-quality, pedestal-mounted, NTSC TV camera connected by coaxial cable to a mobile-unit lorry owned and operated by a local Dallas television station. The image quality was quite good for the time, not at all as murky, fuzzy and constrasty as the images sampled and embedded in this thread.

The event was subsequently replayed multiple times that weekend as part of continuing news coverage and for months thereafter as part of regular network newscasts, and each time viewers saw it -- it continued to shock, in large part because it still looked remarkably "live," due to its being played back from first- or second-generation, professional-quality videotape.

You need to realise that in 1963 American TV viewers were heavily conditioned to expect and accept that scripted-and-edited TV-news stories' illustrative footage (or "B-roll," as the news crews called it) would always be quite perceptibly DEGRADED below the sharper and more life-like quality of both professional LIVE TV and its near-twin, professional VIDEOTAPE. This was because TV-news field cameras of the era consistently captured their images (for eventual editing into narrated newscasts) on substandard-gauge, 16mm, motion picture film.

Network-telecast, prime-time entertainment programs were, in 1963, a nightly mix of either video camera-shot musical/variety/talk programmes (shown live or via videotape, but always at 30 frames per second) or movie camera-shot drama series/sitcoms/theatrical features (played back on professional-standard 35mm film at 24 frames per second, with every fifth frame flashed on the screen twice, to compensate for the flicker differential between movie film and NTSC video).

By stark contrast, the filmed segments used to illustrate newscasts always looked decidedly less "live" than images generated by video cameras (due to six fewer changes of frame each second) and also less sharp and more grainy than the networks' dramas, sitcoms and movies (due to 35mm having four times the resolution of 16mm).

Yes, the Oswald "assassination" news footage was quite shockingly memorable for its time not only because of the violent nature of the "crime" it depicted, but also because of the exceptionally high quality and "immediacy" of the images -- a genuine rarity among TV-news "B-roll" back then.

Eventually, however, the first- and second-generation videotapes of this event became at risk of being damaged from excessive playback, and further-generation dubs were made for archival purposes. But a sad fact about analogue VTR technology from a half-century ago is that it did not hold up very well, resolution-wise, past the first couple of generations. And so the various TV-news and stock-footage companies who obtained rights to the footage for future use fell back on the earlier (and inevitably cruder) technology of photographically transferring to 16mm film (Kinescoping) whatever-generation copy of the Oswald-Ruby footage they had access to, and using these obviously degraded film copies for visual reference in many later newscasts and documentaries.

Nevertheless, when a modern-day JFK documentary or "anniversary" newscast story's producers have the desire (and the necessary cash and high-level access) to do so, it is still possible to show us the "Ruby Assault" in a video-only version that is much closer to the genuine, live-TV coverage of WHATEVER really went on, in the basement of the Dallas Police station that morning than what is displayed earlier in this thread.

Trying to draw a suspicious parallel between "Jack's Big Moment" on 1963 television and the sophisticated, digital fakery of the WTC pseudo-live coverage in 2001 is "barking up the wrong tree".

Or as my gun-totin' American friend from Tennessee might also say, "That Dog Won't Hunt".

As the story goes, two photojournalists (Bob Jackson and Jack Beers) both snapped their pics just as Ruby pulled the trigger ... only that Jackson snapped his picture at the EXACT instant that the bullet hit Oswald, "6 tenths of a second later" than Beers - a lucky strike of luck which earned Jackson the Pulitzer Prize - whereas the poor Jack Beers, we are told, slumped into a "lifelong depression"...

Perhaps the Beers image was discarded for the Pulitzer prize because of its goofy depiction of wall "X" ...? In any case, as we compare it with the below video frame, the two walls in question do not compare very well - although they are certainly meant to be the same. Also, and aside from the inconsistent dark/light bricks, does the wall "X" seen in the below video frame even look like a brick wall?

********************In this BBC video the Pulitzer-winning guy, Bob Jackson, says he had been traveling with the JFK motorcade a couple of days earlier (11/22), but failed to take any pictures of the Dealey Plaza drama - since he was in the process of unloading his film roll... A pretty poor pro-photographer, if you ask me - as no pro-photoreporter will carry only one camera at any time - and certainly not when covering / working for a Presidential motorcade!

In a recent video of his, DGB has noted a significant detail that sets the Beers photo apart from the Jackson photo and officially released video. The big, fat microphone casting its shadow sticking down near the top right side corner.

To be sure there was no unknown photo shooping involved in your source, here is another example sourced from what claims to be the "Dallas Police Department Collection."

Based on how the police lieutenant is handling the alleged murder weapon of The President in the 11 to 15 second mark of the video below, I still say that even a tax attorney with minimal forensic skills should have been able to have had the evidence discarded as "tampered with" should a future trial have ensued.

How can one explain the bullet angle of entry into Oswald in each of the photos? In the top "Pulitzer Prize Winning" Jackson photo it can be observed that Ruby's bullet will enter Oswald in a direction pointing toward the back corner of the station. In the lower Beers photo, however, it looks like the bullet is about to be fired in a slightly different direction toward the light suited, hat wearing man who happened to be handcuffed and escorting Oswald to his transportation -- a trajectory more toward Simon's labeled Wall "X". Given Oswald's theoretical walking progress, each image appears to be misrepresented, unless Ruby, within a half a second, managed to hop to his left to fire at a different angle. Additionally, there is another light suited man appearing to hold a microphone in the bottom picture who, a mere 1/2 second later in the top photo appears to be completely eclipsed by a dark suited man who has appeared to place something into his mouth while seemingly lunging forward. Apparently, this should be the man whose hands in the bottom picture are both represented.

Everyone looks really self-conscious about this camera. Seeming to weigh every step and glance with a weird nervousness.

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5khMFFKslw

This video (earlier posted by lux) is: "KRLD-TV footage of the Oswald Shooting" 31 minutes and 35 secondsPublished on Oct 28, 2013 by JFK1963NEWSVIDEOS(And maybe we should get in the habit of posting these kinds of credits because, more than once, things have disappeared from YouTube after we've critiqued them on the forum. And finding it again will become easier if it's removed if we post the title and length and other identifying information.)

I would argue it was set up like a stage, then later the film was carefully edited, and extracted frames of course "cleaned up" ostensibly for publication, but can we find whom exactly was doing that editing?

Around @10:00, a wobbly camera rolls by and the reporter says he "cannot ask questions now" — almost as if suggesting the existence of the camera makes asking questions impossible. Is this psychological suggestion in a staged and scripted event? He then clarifies that it's due to the noise but he wants "natural sound", again emphasizing that what's going on is "natural" ambience, rather than staged ambience for the sake of setting up a scene.

@11:00, for whose sake is that guy pointing directly down the hall, forming a line with the line of sight of the camera? Is he showing the camera where to look? That would be a fine explanation, but it certainly serves as a magician kind of cue: Keep your attention here. His finger also resembles a child pointing an imaginary gun. If it's a coincidence, fine.

@13:00, there are two honks in a row. Immediately after the second honk, there is a bang, and the announcer casually begins describing the situation even as the most interesting drama unfolds. I think comparing that to 9/11 is not, as suggested by repentantandy, sending a dog that won't hunt; indeed, it's a pretty apt comparison to the weird behaviors of the scripted reporters we saw on 9/11.

A short while later, this five syllable word "Os-wald-has-been-shot" is repeated a few times, almost like "bibbidy bobbity boo". It doesn't sound natural at all.

Around halfway through the 14th minute, the footage changes dramatically and the announcer's voice is cut out in an odd way. Can we find comparable video of this, and an explanation for the cut-off sound? Doesn't it seem as though this, too, is chopped up and edited in some way?

@14:30 "No one ... fired a shot. Only some blast. From some bullet ..." reports announcer "Bob" ..."Oswald fell to the concrete ... in front of our eyes ..."

Hmmm. Reminiscent of you saw with your own ... oop ... right there ... that is a hard thing to watch kind of 9/11 scripting nonsense.

He then reports that police officers covered Oswald and "immediately ... instantly ... took him from our [site/sight]."

Implies a staged shooting like nothing else!

First witness we hear @16:00 sounds ... French/Swiss/Italian? Simon surely would chastise me for not catching this accent. Then the guy laughs at 16:51! Reporter calls him Lee Harold Oswald. This could be chalked up to nervousness for any number of reasons, but diverting our attention from the gregarious witness who acts like he just saw a guy do a back flip rather than get shot before his eyes seems to be the call of the moment. He calls him Lee Harold Oswald again @17:20.

When the reporter mentions an ambulance a few times, it seems that's all the reporters' cue to move on and shuffle into the next position.

With ample time to apply make-up (if anything has even been applied, he moves by so fast) Oswald is wheeled right before the lucky cameras again.

There is plenty to scratch your head about when viewing this so-called spontaneous footage, but I have no reason to doubt it's a very staged operation.